On Nov 13, 2015 8:20 AM, "Tony Papadimitriou" <to...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Here’s a merge conflict I thought should have been resolved automatically:
>
> I have the trunk version from where the symbol RF_OUT is renamed to
SRF_OUT in the branch version.  It has never been renamed to SRF_OUT in the
trunk version (yet).
>
> When trying to merge (--cherrypick, actually) from trunk the specific
check-in (either by giving the branch name or the actual check-in ID) from
the development branch that has the needed change, I got the following
unexpected merge conflict:

I am confused. You say merge "from trunk" & "from the development branch"
in the same sentence. Is it possible you are going the wrong direction?

The common ancestor should not be the cherry picked commit, but there
doesn't seem to be enough context here to positively identify which way is
which or the common ancestor.

>
> <<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>                     @?status  RF_OUT,#?MsgOn,#?MsgOff,fWriteZ
> ======= COMMON ANCESTOR content follows ============================
>                     @?status  SRF_OUT,#?MsgOn,#?MsgOff,fWriteZ
> ======= MERGED IN content follows ==================================
>                     @?status  SRF_OUT,#?MsgOn,#?MsgOff,puts
> >>>>>>> END MERGE CONFLICT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> As you can see, the common ancestor content shows the SRF_OUT label when
that label was named so only in the (under development) branch version.
>
> Additional info that may help determine what went wrong:
> The SRF_OUT is renamed in the first node of the new branch several
check-ins before the cherry picked one.
> There have been two merged from the trunk (after the rename) but are
unrelated to this change and there were never any merge conflicts.
>
> I expected the merged-in content to have completely replaced the local
version.
> Is there something I’ve done wrong that got fossil confused, is this a
bug, or simply a case of merge algorithm imperfection?  But, what confused
it?  It seems like a very simple change.
>
> Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Reply via email to